We just read this letter by Sherif Girgis from a post in Joshua Harris' blog. He's "a Rhodes Scholar and a senior studying philosophy major at Princeton." It was first posted in the National Review Online. Mr. Obama is a brilliant orator. Scary good. And yet he has one flaw that in our eyes in undeniable in a candidate for president. Part of the the problem is that we're looking at politics in a whole new light what with a baby on the way. It adds a whole new dimension to our choice for a political seat and political choices. Not only are we casting votes on how we'll be affected, but we're casting votes now on how our children's lives will be affected. This young man from Princeton is astounding. What insight from such youth and inexperience. Read on and we'll comment.
Dear Senator Obama: As an immigrant from Kenya, your father found new hope in America's noble principles and vast opportunities. The same promise brought my parents here from Egypt when I was still too young to thank them. Now you have inspired my generation with your vision of a country united around the same ideals of liberty and justice, "filled with hope and possibility for all Americans." But do you mean it? As a legislator, you have opposed every effort to protect unborn human life. Shockingly, you even opposed a bill to protect the lives of babies who, having survived an attempted abortion, are born alive. Despite your party's broad support for legal abortion and its public funding, most Democrats (including Senator Clinton) did not oppose the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. You, however, opposed it. Your vision of America seems to eliminate "hope and possibility" for a whole class of Americans: the youngest and most vulnerable. You would deny them the most basic protection of justice, the most elementary equality of opportunity: the right to be born. As a prerequisite for any other right, the right to life is the great civil-rights issue of our time. It is what slavery and segregation were to generations past. Our response to this issue is the measure of our fidelity to a defining American principle: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life." You have asked me to vote for you. In turn, may I ask you three simple questions? They are straightforward questions of fact about abortion. They are at the heart of the debate. In fairness, I believe that you owe the people you would lead a good-faith answer to each: 1. The heart whose beating is stilled in every abortion -- is it a human heart? 2. The tiny limbs torn by the abortionist's scalpel -- are they human limbs? 3. The blood that flows from the fetus's veins -- is it human blood? If the stopped heart is a human heart, if the torn limbs are human limbs, if the spilled blood is human blood, can there be any denying that what is killed in an abortion is a human being? In your vision for America, the license to kill that human being is a right. You have worked to protect that "right" at every turn. But can there be a right to deny some human beings life or the equal protection of the law? Of course, some do deny that every human being has a right to life. They say that size or degree of development or dependence can make a difference. But the same was once said of color. Some say that abortion is a "necessary evil." But the same was once said of slavery. Some say that prohibiting abortion would only harm women by driving it underground. But to assume so is truly to play the politics of fear. A compassionate society would never accept these false alternatives. A compassionate society would protect both mother and child, coming to the aid of women in need rather than calling violence against their children the answer to their problems. Can we become a society that does not sacrifice some people to help others? Or is that hope too audacious? You have said that abortion is necessary to protect women's equality. But surely we can do better. Surely we can build an America where the equality of some is not purchased with the blood of others. Or would that mean too much change from politics as usual? Can we provide every member of the human family equal protection under the law? Your record as a legislator gives a resounding answer: No, we can't. That is the answer the Confederacy gave the Union, the answer segregationists gave young children, the answer a complacent bus driver once gave a defiant Rosa Parks. But a different answer brought your father from Kenya so many years ago; a different answer brought my family from Egypt some years later. Now is your chance, Senator Obama, to make good on the spontaneous slogan of your campaign, to adopt the more American and more humane answer to the question of whether we can secure liberty and justice for all: Yes, we can.
The fact of the matter is, our president makes decisions on how lives are affected every day, from Iraq to New Orleans. And yet, with all of those decisions life is taken into account. The way that Senator Obama presents it, an unborn's life is of no value. Being future parents we caught a glimpse of this a few weeks back. When you're sitting in a doctor's office, holding your spouse's hand, and looking at a video of the inside of a uterus, you can't deny the life that exists in that womb. When you see the tiny heartbeat going at least 4 times faster than your own at the moment, you can't deny the existence of a human. When you see it move for the first time, see it forming distinct legs and arms, can actually see it's heart transparent through its body and you know that there is a being living inside of a uterus, you can't deny that there is a person there. What is now apparent more than ever is that abortion should be one of the most important deal breakers in whether you choose a candidate or not. It's not about denying a woman's right to choose, it's about whether you are legalizing the murder of a tiny infant. How can that not be the most important issue for this and future generations. Yeah, we stopped the war. Yeah, we fixed the economy. But will we do it while allowing the death of millions of tiny Americans. John Piper is cited over on Joshua Harris' same post, and concludes with a better summary than we could right. Please pray for our leaders. Pray for Americans who will vote. Pray for Obama's heart if he is elected as president. That God will be honored and his statutes upheld. Here is Piper's take:
there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example . . . a person who said that no black people could hold office-on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor-that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office. . . . I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him-except that child-killing is more serious than those.
No comments:
Post a Comment